[schex86]

When books were bound, literally, to the printed form, then, that physical form, was, by definition, scarce. The physical books produced by publishers and printing industries added value to our society by aiding in the conveyance of valuable knowledge & ideas.

However, the ideas themselves, were not bound to the physical medium, and transferred themselves freely, mouth to mouth, in journals, letters, songs, etc. They still do. Is it the inherent right of an author to control all these various means of transmission throughout, apparently, the entire world??

Unfortunately, the publishers and printers, with the advent of IT, see their powerful roles in this exchange of ideas lessening, and so have taken actions to preserve themselves at the expense of everyone else by attempting to extend copyright controls beyond their original intent, which was, I believe, to ensure that only the author (and his agents) were authorized to sell his book.

Hence, we now have artificial scarcity created through legislation that was no doubt proposed originally by these very same publishers. How can these laws, which prop-up a shrinking industrial sector by giving it unjust control over the actions of others, possibly lead to any net gain for our society?

If there were no publishers, can you say with absolute certainty, given the current technological status, that various authors with important ideas would not have shared them in some form or fashion? If so, then why is the publisher so necessary and why must I give up my liberty, my rights, to use this information as I see fit, once I have received it?

As long as I am not violating the true intent of the copyright laws, by selling or attempting to credit the work to myself, I am merely participating in that age old human activity, the transmission of ideas, even if those ideas happened to be contained in a digital file.